Are these numbers sufficient for calculating $P(alpha|beta,gamma)$?












1












$begingroup$


Given three probabilities $Pr(beta|alpha)$, $Pr(gamma|alpha)$ and $Pr(alpha)$; and that $beta$ and $gamma$ are conditionally independent given $alpha$, can $Pr(alpha|beta, gamma)$ be calculated?



My solution:



$$begin{align}
Pr(alpha|beta, gamma) &= frac{Pr(alpha, beta, gamma)}{Pr(beta, gamma)} \
&= frac{Pr(alpha) Pr(beta, gamma|alpha)}{Pr(beta, gamma)}
end{align}$$



Since $beta$ and $gamma$ are independent given $alpha$, we can get:



$Pr(alpha|beta, gamma) = frac{Pr(alpha) Pr(beta|alpha) Pr(gamma|alpha)}{Pr(beta, gamma)}$



Three probabilities in the numerator are given but the denominator is not, then the given constraints are not sufficient to calculate $Pr(alpha|beta, gamma)$.



Am I right?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    Given three probabilities $Pr(beta|alpha)$, $Pr(gamma|alpha)$ and $Pr(alpha)$; and that $beta$ and $gamma$ are conditionally independent given $alpha$, can $Pr(alpha|beta, gamma)$ be calculated?



    My solution:



    $$begin{align}
    Pr(alpha|beta, gamma) &= frac{Pr(alpha, beta, gamma)}{Pr(beta, gamma)} \
    &= frac{Pr(alpha) Pr(beta, gamma|alpha)}{Pr(beta, gamma)}
    end{align}$$



    Since $beta$ and $gamma$ are independent given $alpha$, we can get:



    $Pr(alpha|beta, gamma) = frac{Pr(alpha) Pr(beta|alpha) Pr(gamma|alpha)}{Pr(beta, gamma)}$



    Three probabilities in the numerator are given but the denominator is not, then the given constraints are not sufficient to calculate $Pr(alpha|beta, gamma)$.



    Am I right?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      Given three probabilities $Pr(beta|alpha)$, $Pr(gamma|alpha)$ and $Pr(alpha)$; and that $beta$ and $gamma$ are conditionally independent given $alpha$, can $Pr(alpha|beta, gamma)$ be calculated?



      My solution:



      $$begin{align}
      Pr(alpha|beta, gamma) &= frac{Pr(alpha, beta, gamma)}{Pr(beta, gamma)} \
      &= frac{Pr(alpha) Pr(beta, gamma|alpha)}{Pr(beta, gamma)}
      end{align}$$



      Since $beta$ and $gamma$ are independent given $alpha$, we can get:



      $Pr(alpha|beta, gamma) = frac{Pr(alpha) Pr(beta|alpha) Pr(gamma|alpha)}{Pr(beta, gamma)}$



      Three probabilities in the numerator are given but the denominator is not, then the given constraints are not sufficient to calculate $Pr(alpha|beta, gamma)$.



      Am I right?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Given three probabilities $Pr(beta|alpha)$, $Pr(gamma|alpha)$ and $Pr(alpha)$; and that $beta$ and $gamma$ are conditionally independent given $alpha$, can $Pr(alpha|beta, gamma)$ be calculated?



      My solution:



      $$begin{align}
      Pr(alpha|beta, gamma) &= frac{Pr(alpha, beta, gamma)}{Pr(beta, gamma)} \
      &= frac{Pr(alpha) Pr(beta, gamma|alpha)}{Pr(beta, gamma)}
      end{align}$$



      Since $beta$ and $gamma$ are independent given $alpha$, we can get:



      $Pr(alpha|beta, gamma) = frac{Pr(alpha) Pr(beta|alpha) Pr(gamma|alpha)}{Pr(beta, gamma)}$



      Three probabilities in the numerator are given but the denominator is not, then the given constraints are not sufficient to calculate $Pr(alpha|beta, gamma)$.



      Am I right?







      probability conditional-probability






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 17 at 14:35









      lernerlerner

      314217




      314217






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          You could use Bayes Theorem and then use the independence given $alpha$:
          $$mathbb{P}(beta, gamma) = sum_{alpha} mathbb{P}(beta, gamma | alpha)mathbb{P}(alpha)= sum_{alpha}mathbb{P}(beta | alpha) mathbb{P} (gamma | alpha) mathbb{P} (alpha) $$



          P.S.: I'm assuming you are given those probabilities for each $alpha$ and $alpha$ spans in a discrete set.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I think the Bayesian tables are given, then $P(beta,gamma)$ becomes calculable.
            $endgroup$
            – lerner
            Jan 17 at 14:57










          • $begingroup$
            Yes, you need either tables or an analytical expression in function of $alpha$.
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 17 at 14:59






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            No worries. I was about to ask what you meant :)
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 18 at 15:19










          • $begingroup$
            Is it right that we can know the probability for each $alpha$ if $Pr(alpha)$ is given as described in the question?
            $endgroup$
            – lerner
            Jan 19 at 3:32










          • $begingroup$
            Actually, I assumed you were given $mathbb{P}(alpha)$ for every $alpha$. Otherwise you cannot apply Bayes Theorem.
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 21 at 20:46











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3077053%2fare-these-numbers-sufficient-for-calculating-p-alpha-beta-gamma%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          You could use Bayes Theorem and then use the independence given $alpha$:
          $$mathbb{P}(beta, gamma) = sum_{alpha} mathbb{P}(beta, gamma | alpha)mathbb{P}(alpha)= sum_{alpha}mathbb{P}(beta | alpha) mathbb{P} (gamma | alpha) mathbb{P} (alpha) $$



          P.S.: I'm assuming you are given those probabilities for each $alpha$ and $alpha$ spans in a discrete set.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I think the Bayesian tables are given, then $P(beta,gamma)$ becomes calculable.
            $endgroup$
            – lerner
            Jan 17 at 14:57










          • $begingroup$
            Yes, you need either tables or an analytical expression in function of $alpha$.
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 17 at 14:59






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            No worries. I was about to ask what you meant :)
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 18 at 15:19










          • $begingroup$
            Is it right that we can know the probability for each $alpha$ if $Pr(alpha)$ is given as described in the question?
            $endgroup$
            – lerner
            Jan 19 at 3:32










          • $begingroup$
            Actually, I assumed you were given $mathbb{P}(alpha)$ for every $alpha$. Otherwise you cannot apply Bayes Theorem.
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 21 at 20:46
















          1












          $begingroup$

          You could use Bayes Theorem and then use the independence given $alpha$:
          $$mathbb{P}(beta, gamma) = sum_{alpha} mathbb{P}(beta, gamma | alpha)mathbb{P}(alpha)= sum_{alpha}mathbb{P}(beta | alpha) mathbb{P} (gamma | alpha) mathbb{P} (alpha) $$



          P.S.: I'm assuming you are given those probabilities for each $alpha$ and $alpha$ spans in a discrete set.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I think the Bayesian tables are given, then $P(beta,gamma)$ becomes calculable.
            $endgroup$
            – lerner
            Jan 17 at 14:57










          • $begingroup$
            Yes, you need either tables or an analytical expression in function of $alpha$.
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 17 at 14:59






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            No worries. I was about to ask what you meant :)
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 18 at 15:19










          • $begingroup$
            Is it right that we can know the probability for each $alpha$ if $Pr(alpha)$ is given as described in the question?
            $endgroup$
            – lerner
            Jan 19 at 3:32










          • $begingroup$
            Actually, I assumed you were given $mathbb{P}(alpha)$ for every $alpha$. Otherwise you cannot apply Bayes Theorem.
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 21 at 20:46














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          You could use Bayes Theorem and then use the independence given $alpha$:
          $$mathbb{P}(beta, gamma) = sum_{alpha} mathbb{P}(beta, gamma | alpha)mathbb{P}(alpha)= sum_{alpha}mathbb{P}(beta | alpha) mathbb{P} (gamma | alpha) mathbb{P} (alpha) $$



          P.S.: I'm assuming you are given those probabilities for each $alpha$ and $alpha$ spans in a discrete set.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          You could use Bayes Theorem and then use the independence given $alpha$:
          $$mathbb{P}(beta, gamma) = sum_{alpha} mathbb{P}(beta, gamma | alpha)mathbb{P}(alpha)= sum_{alpha}mathbb{P}(beta | alpha) mathbb{P} (gamma | alpha) mathbb{P} (alpha) $$



          P.S.: I'm assuming you are given those probabilities for each $alpha$ and $alpha$ spans in a discrete set.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jan 17 at 14:50

























          answered Jan 17 at 14:47









          HarnakHarnak

          1,299512




          1,299512












          • $begingroup$
            I think the Bayesian tables are given, then $P(beta,gamma)$ becomes calculable.
            $endgroup$
            – lerner
            Jan 17 at 14:57










          • $begingroup$
            Yes, you need either tables or an analytical expression in function of $alpha$.
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 17 at 14:59






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            No worries. I was about to ask what you meant :)
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 18 at 15:19










          • $begingroup$
            Is it right that we can know the probability for each $alpha$ if $Pr(alpha)$ is given as described in the question?
            $endgroup$
            – lerner
            Jan 19 at 3:32










          • $begingroup$
            Actually, I assumed you were given $mathbb{P}(alpha)$ for every $alpha$. Otherwise you cannot apply Bayes Theorem.
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 21 at 20:46


















          • $begingroup$
            I think the Bayesian tables are given, then $P(beta,gamma)$ becomes calculable.
            $endgroup$
            – lerner
            Jan 17 at 14:57










          • $begingroup$
            Yes, you need either tables or an analytical expression in function of $alpha$.
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 17 at 14:59






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            No worries. I was about to ask what you meant :)
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 18 at 15:19










          • $begingroup$
            Is it right that we can know the probability for each $alpha$ if $Pr(alpha)$ is given as described in the question?
            $endgroup$
            – lerner
            Jan 19 at 3:32










          • $begingroup$
            Actually, I assumed you were given $mathbb{P}(alpha)$ for every $alpha$. Otherwise you cannot apply Bayes Theorem.
            $endgroup$
            – Harnak
            Jan 21 at 20:46
















          $begingroup$
          I think the Bayesian tables are given, then $P(beta,gamma)$ becomes calculable.
          $endgroup$
          – lerner
          Jan 17 at 14:57




          $begingroup$
          I think the Bayesian tables are given, then $P(beta,gamma)$ becomes calculable.
          $endgroup$
          – lerner
          Jan 17 at 14:57












          $begingroup$
          Yes, you need either tables or an analytical expression in function of $alpha$.
          $endgroup$
          – Harnak
          Jan 17 at 14:59




          $begingroup$
          Yes, you need either tables or an analytical expression in function of $alpha$.
          $endgroup$
          – Harnak
          Jan 17 at 14:59




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          No worries. I was about to ask what you meant :)
          $endgroup$
          – Harnak
          Jan 18 at 15:19




          $begingroup$
          No worries. I was about to ask what you meant :)
          $endgroup$
          – Harnak
          Jan 18 at 15:19












          $begingroup$
          Is it right that we can know the probability for each $alpha$ if $Pr(alpha)$ is given as described in the question?
          $endgroup$
          – lerner
          Jan 19 at 3:32




          $begingroup$
          Is it right that we can know the probability for each $alpha$ if $Pr(alpha)$ is given as described in the question?
          $endgroup$
          – lerner
          Jan 19 at 3:32












          $begingroup$
          Actually, I assumed you were given $mathbb{P}(alpha)$ for every $alpha$. Otherwise you cannot apply Bayes Theorem.
          $endgroup$
          – Harnak
          Jan 21 at 20:46




          $begingroup$
          Actually, I assumed you were given $mathbb{P}(alpha)$ for every $alpha$. Otherwise you cannot apply Bayes Theorem.
          $endgroup$
          – Harnak
          Jan 21 at 20:46


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3077053%2fare-these-numbers-sufficient-for-calculating-p-alpha-beta-gamma%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Can a sorcerer learn a 5th-level spell early by creating spell slots using the Font of Magic feature?

          Does disintegrating a polymorphed enemy still kill it after the 2018 errata?

          A Topological Invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$